Educational Decentralization: Issues and Challenges

No. 9

Educational Decentralization: Issues and Challenges

E. Mark Hanson*

November 1997

*E. Mark Hanson is a Professor of Education and Management at the University of California, Riverside. He has studied educational decentralization reforms in the United States, Egypt, Spain, and various countries in Latin American and Asia. He has been a consultant on the subject for the World Bank, UNESCO, UNDP, USAID, and the Harvard Institute for International Development. The author is solely responsible for any errors of fact or judgment.

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EDUCATIONAL DECENTRALIZATION: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Part I: NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ISSUES What is decentralization? What are the goals and strategies of educational decentralization? Can an educational system truly be decentralized? Does a shared vision exist among the centers of power? Who controls the decentralization process? How do governments deal with teachers unions? What are the strategies of financial decentralization? How does time in office influence a decentralization effort? Is incremental or "all-at-once" decentralization the best strategy? How do policy makers deal with regional differentiation under decentralization? How long does it take to decentralize an educational system?

Does decentralization increase learning? Part II: DECENTRALIZED SCHOOLS

What are the basic premises of decentralized schools? What innovative approaches to local school decentralization are underway in the United States? What innovative forms of decentralization exist within the school building?

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Endnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Executive Summary

Since the 1980s, the transfer of educational decision-making authority and responsibility from the center to regional and local systems has become an increasingly popular reform around the world. At least eight, often interrelated, goals are driving the change: accelerating economic development by modernizing institutions; increasing management efficiency; reallocating financial responsibility, for example, from the center to the periphery; promoting democratization; increasing local control through deregulation; introducing market-based education; neutralizing competing centers of power such as teachers unions and political parties; and enhancing the quality of education (for example, by reducing dropout rates or increasing learning).

In pursuit of these goals, several policy guidelines have proven useful:

? Begin with an analysis of the current educational system. Policy makers can design a better reform strategy if they understand the strengths and weaknesses of the existing system. Such areas as management efficiency, evaluation capacity, effectiveness of information systems and budgeting, research productivity, the adequacy of the curriculum, the quality of classroom teaching and learning, and community involvement should be examined.

? Understand the stated and unstated goals driving reform. Distinguishing between stated and unstated goals, and understanding the importance of each type of goal to parents, teachers, administrators, education authorities, and other key actors, is critical.

? Develop a common vision of reform among potentially competing centers of power. This is essential if collaboration, rather than conflict, is to become the dominant force

driving actions. To this end, it is important to initiate an open flow of ideas and information among key actors.

? Develop a plan that is simple, clear and realistic. Most decentralization reforms are initiated with the center having only an abstract (or quite unrealistic) plan. Instead, the plan should specify the necessary pre-conditions for change. These include such factors as training regional and local leadership; transferring or retiring personnel; modifying traditional decision-making roles; and developing co-financing formulas at the national, regional, and local levels which will be needed to carry out assigned tasks, such as curriculum development and school maintenance.

? Conduct an organizational and management analysis early in the process to determine where in the educational system specific responsibilities and authority should be assigned. No such assignment should be made until the essential support, including financing and technical training, exists to carry out decisions.

? Transfer authority incrementally, rather than all at once. Politicians and educational policy makers are always attracted to the simultaneous "all-regions-at-once" mode of decentralization because of the potential for quick and dramatic change. However, the complexity of a decentralization program (often coupled with the lack of experience with the process, the unequal distribution of human and material resources, and the existence of both weak and strong regional infrastructure) makes this strategy extraordinarily difficult to execute successfully. An incremental approach, in which various parties adopt change at different rates as they are ready, enables those on a slower track to learn valuable lessons from those on the fast track.

? Be willing to share power. The exercise of power in a large organization brings psychological as well as material rewards that senior officials are often reluctant to give up or share with regional/municipal officials. Consequently, national officials who have extensive experience managing a centralized system are usually not the best candidates to manage a decentralized system.

? Think long term. Decentralization is not created by passing a law. Rather, it must be built by overcoming a series of challenges at the center and the periphery. Years, rather than weeks or months, usually pass before reform occurs. Some regions may move faster than others at first because they are better prepared to change (for example, they benefit from stronger administrative infrastructures, greater financial resources, or less politicization).

In the final analysis, the chances for successful change are greatly enhanced if the decentralization process results in transferring positive opportunities to the regions/municipalities rather than problems and burdens, such as badly maintained schools, poorly trained teachers, or heavier financial demands without the means to pay.

This document addresses several critical issues related to educational decentralization. It concludes with a series of insights to guide policy makers, based on international experience.

Educational Decentralization: Issues and Challenges

by E. Mark Hanson

With the disappearance of military/autocratic governments in Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s, emerging democracies increasingly looked to educational decentralization as a way to improve administrative services, increase the quality of education, share power with the local citizenry, and advance the pace of national development. That shift coincided with a worldwide movement, spanning federal systems of government (including those in Argentina, India, Nigeria, and the United States) as well as unitary systems (such as those in Colombia, Pakistan, and Papua New Guinea), in large countries (such as Australia, Canada, and Spain) as well as small (such as El Salvador, Malta, Nicaragua, and Zaire).

Understanding the distinct variables and processes that make up these reforms can be a daunting task. Using key questions as an organizing device, this document identifies and explains the fundamental issues, goals, processes, and strategies that shape educational decentralization initiatives in Latin America. In addition, the report discusses the possibilities and pitfalls associated with decentralization processes, particularly as they are associated with political, financial, institutional, and educational quality issues. The document concludes with a series of policy considerations that can help guide the thinking and planning of leaders who are involved in decentralizing a public educational system. In evaluating the material presented here, it is important to note that because the countries of Latin America are so different in their political, economic, and social makeup, the historical experience (good or bad) of a strategy introduced in one country is not necessarily predictive of what might happen in another.

PART I: NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ISSUES

Q. What is decentralization?

A. There are three major forms of decentralization:

? Deconcentration typically transfers tasks and work, but not authority, to other units within an organization.

? Delegation transfers decision-making authority from higher to lower hierarchical units. However, this authority can be withdrawn at the discretion of the delegating unit.

? Devolution transfers authority to a unit that can act independently, or a unit that can act without first asking permission. Privatization is a form of devolution in which responsibility and resources are transferred from public sector institutions to private sector ones.

Understanding the differences between the distinct types of decentralization is essential because they determine the amount, type, and permanency of authority to be transferred.

Policy Lesson: Devolution, rather than delegation of authority, has a better chance for long-term success because it provides for continuity in the process of change.

Q. What are the goals and strategies of educational decentralization?

A. There are no generic organizational and management strategies of educational decentralization. Typically, specific strategies are keyed to specific goals. Thus, successful decentralization requires knowing the stated and unstated goals driving reform. There are at least eight, often interrelated, reform goals:

1. Accelerated economic development. Often a desired outcome of decentralization, this goal was the centerpiece of Venezuela's regional decentralization initiative in the 1970s because too much of the nation's power, wealth, executive talent, and population was concentrated in the capital city. "Caracas is Venezuela and Venezuela is Caracas" was the slogan of the day. The goal of decentralization was to create nine geographically distributed, socio-economic growth poles as engines of regional development. The government established integrated branch offices of all government ministries (including an Office of Education) within each of the nine regions and delegated to them the authority to plan, execute, and manage integrated development projects financed by the central government.1

2. Increased management efficiencyThis is a stated goal of (such as faster decision making, reduced bureaucracy or increased commitment). virtually all decentralization initiatives.

3. Redistribution of financial responsibility. Stated or unstated, this is a primary goal seen often in recent years (for example, in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua, and the United States). Sometimes new national laws force financial responsibility for

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download